If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense

Well gee, I am a beekeeper and I understand that perfectly - but his location has NOTHING to do with the post at the top of this thread, which NOBODY has come close to engaging with.

The thread title is "Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense" and the original post is liberally illustrated with dogs! What do dogs have to do with neonicotinoids, bees, or beekeeping?

Perhaps you would be happier if I posted a photo of a rabid dog? Do you really think dogs are more relevant to beekeeping than LOCATION? Or is it that this thread is not really about beekeeping in the first place?

Re: Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense

And, on another note, when you come here and slander a whole group of people (those who develop neo-nics) by accusing them of lying etc., you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when you complain about the moderation of the forum. I'm all for people being held accountable, and I still have an open mind in regard to the safety of neo-nics, but I'm certainly no fan of reactionary, crusading sensationalizing.

Re: Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense

The 4 dog defense claim does not hold water for me. it is defense. and you could put any response fro,m an innocent person being accused of something within it's framework. IN other words how woudl it look if someone "Defended" from a false accusation.

Denial- so what is an honest response if you didn't do it?
Obfuscation- simply out of being offended from being accused.
Spreading doubt- simply offering other ideas of what might have caused it
Diversion- same as above just being suspected as a lie for other reasons. You can confuse them or put the blame on others either way suspicion is removed form you. but either would be used as helping investigate the cause by an innocent parson.

Now the 4 dog defense is specifically intended to look at the responses of a guilty person trying to avoid blame.

There is much more that is evident beyond their defense in a guilty party. Yes these are methods a person will deny what they are guilty of. but they alone are not evidence of deceit by a far cry.

Re: Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense

The Four Dog Defense is relevant because it is what Big Ag, Big Chem and Big Tobacco have been using since WWII. Bayer and Syngenta may call their trade 'crop protection' but the truth is that they are in the poison business. They design deadly toxins derived from nerve gas and manipulate the regulatory system and tests to get them on the market. They then employ every lie in the Playbook to keep them on the market for 20 years - and then reality catches up and they are banned (DDT, Dieldrin, Aldrin, Organophosphates, Endosulfan ,. . .)

This is not some academic, teatime debate. This is what these people do:

Slovenian beehives in Pomurje after exposure to the neonicotinoid clothianidin applied as seed coating in corn, April 2011. The new EU prescription to put deflectors on pneumatic sowing machines to avoid dust drift of the poison did not protect these bees. The use of clothianidin is also allowed in the Netherlands under the names Poncho Rood for corn and Poncho Beta for sugar beet.

Treated Corn Seed and Pesticide Banned as Bee Deaths Continue
Ljubljana, 28 April 2011 (STA) - The government of Slovenia issued a temporary ban Thursday on seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides which have caused massive bee deaths in the north-eastern Pomurje region in the recent weeks. The use of Biscay, a pesticide, will also be limited.

The decision comes after beekeepers in the heavily agricultural region Pomurje reported massive bee deaths. About 2,500 beehives kept by 45 beekeepers in Pomurje have been affected, Agriculture Minister Gregor Zidan told the press after the cabinet session.

Lab analyses showed that in at least seven cases the most likely culprit was clothianidin, an insecticide used to treat corn seed. Samples of the treated corn have been sent to German labs to verify whether the corn had been treated properly.

Clothianidin had been banned by the previous government in 2008 following a similar outbreak of bee deaths, but the ban was revoked by Zidan's predecessor Milan Pogacnik based on an analysis by the Chemistry Institute.

Zidan said he would demand explanations on why the ban was revoked and then decide whether to take action against his predecessor.

There is no data on how much seed corn has been treated with clothianidin. Joze Ilersic, the head of the Phytosanitary Administration, said than in 2008 a third of the seed corn had been treated with insecticide.

Aside from a temporary ban on corn seed treated with neonicotinoids, the government decided to disallow the use of Biscay (based on thiacloprid - another neonicotinoid) for the treatment of canola during blooming due to its possible synergy effects with other pesticides.

Both clothianidin and thiacloprid are produced by Bayer Cropscience whose best selling product is the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, also linked to honeybee decline.

Re: Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense

Originally Posted by btmurph

Why oh why am I doing this to myself?

So in 0.28% of cases the likely culprit was clothianidin?

This is why you can't rationally discuss these topics. If you really don't dig into the studies then you can find data to support any point of view. Bees die so it must be the evil corporation's fault. NOTE: I am not suggesting that these chemicals don't have long-term adverse effects, only, that I have not seen any study that conclusively isolated a CCD culprit. Why? Because the cause is an interaction of many things--some of which I'm sure we are not even aware of yet. Obviously, if they come in contact w/ neonics it will cause issues--that's the point of an insecticide. The problem w/ these kinds of things, whether insecticides or new meds, is that long-term effects require long term data in the real world (is that a doggy defense?) which is only achieved by, well, using them.

I simply replied to this because it seemed the site was being spammed by the neonic stuff recently (usually I only have time to look at the homepage).

Unfortunately the education system today is more about pushing dogma than teaching critical thinking. One of the dogmatic views pushed: corporations are nothing but evil money grubbing capitalist monsters. And those erudite types love to profess this via their twitter and facebook accounts on their iPhones while they watch the latest blockbuster on their laptop in a Starbucks.

Re: Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense

The Four Dog Defense is relevant because it is what Big Ag, Big Chem and Big Tobacco have been using since WWII. B

So you say. I say they are defending themselves from your lies and accusations as well as others. so how would their response be any different if I am right?

I will tell you what I see that tells me they are deceitful. They will not stay on the issue of CCD. they make a great argument for how Nics are not responsible for EFB AFB. SHB or even wax moths. but they will not present one bit of defense that their product does not contribute to CCD. I believe I have even seen statements by Bayer that present a claim that their products are not responsible for freezing and or starvation in bees. yet they will not comment on how their products are not any part of bees vanishing. and that is what I see is blatantly suspicious. I do not consider it suspicions if a person defends themselves from accusations. And I am not impressed with how much you can decorate the name of defense.

Re: Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense

Originally Posted by borderbeeman

Thanks, I guess you have been 'ignoring' things for a long time -

What concerns me is how you ignore firsthand experience from others that fly in the face of all your claims. If you want to be taken seriously, then I'd expect a dialog from you that takes into account opposing experience and show an interest in trying to figure out why there isn't a uniform outcome with all bees.

Re: Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense

Originally Posted by Barry

What concerns me is how you ignore firsthand experience from others that fly in the face of all your claims.

This statement "rings true" for both sides. When hands on experience reveals to you the same outcome season after season those who never experience it themselves will call you out as a liar. Even when they have no proof you're wrong.....the only proof they have is they haven't had the same experience themselves.

Re: Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense

Originally Posted by JClark

Are you a paid anti-neonic advocate? Seems to be all you post about.

Are you familiar at all w/ keeping bees?

From what I've seen here these four dogs are the conspiracy theories people like to declare when they are caught w/ their pants down. Look up the Stromnessbees character here and the citations he pushes for science.

There have been several observations that Stromness and borderman are one in the same.... no proof just studies that show....

Re: Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense

Originally Posted by Barry

What concerns me is how you ignore firsthand experience from others that fly in the face of all your claims. If you want to be taken seriously, then I'd expect a dialog from you that takes into account opposing experience and show an interest in trying to figure out why there isn't a uniform outcome with all bees.